Landmark decisions establish a significant new legal principle or concept or otherwise that substantially changes the interpretation
Question:
Landmark decisions establish a significant new legal principle or concept or otherwise that substantially changes the interpretation of existing law. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:
- distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule ofstare decisis;
- establishing a "test" or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court. (Landmark Cases, n.d., para. 1)
Throughout the years there have been a number of landmark court cases that have shaped the field of forensic psychology. This week you will analyze one of the below landmark court cases related to the field of forensic psychology. You can find the details of most of these cases at www.FindLaw.com or through an Internet search.
Can you address the following points?:
- The basic facts of the case
- What the court ruled
- What makes this case a landmark case
- A substantial discussion on the impact this case had in the field of forensic psychology
Additionally, Can you use a minimum of2 sourcesto support the points?
The following list of forensic psychology related landmark cases is provided by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (https://www.aapl.org/landmark_list.htm)
Civil Commitment
Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F.Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972) O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 95 S.Ct. 2486 (1975) Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 99 S.Ct. 1804 (1979) Parham v. JR and JL, 442 U.S. 584, 99 S.Ct. 2493 (1979) Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 110 S.Ct. 975 (1990)
Confidentiality/Privilege/Privacy
Lifschutz, In Re, 2 Cal. 3d 415, 467 P.2d 557 (1970) Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 97 S.Ct. 869 (1977) Doe v. Roe, 400 N.Y.Supp.2d 668 (1977) Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996) Commonwealth v. Kobrin, 395 Mass. 1004, 479 N.E. 2d 674 (1985)
Competency to Stand Trial
Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402, 80 5. Ct. 788 (1960) Wilson v. U.S., 129 U.S. App. D.C. 107, 391 F.2d 460 (1968) Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715, 92 S.Ct. 1845 (1972) Seiling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211 (9th Cir Ariz. 1973) Godinez v. Moran, 113 S.Ct. 2680 (1993) Riggins v. Nevada, 112 S.Ct. 1810 (1992) Cooper v. Oklahoma, 116 S.Ct. 1373 (1996)
Criminal Responsibility
Insanity Defense MNaghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep.718, SEng Rep. 722, (1843) Durham v. U.S., 94 U.S. App. D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, (1954) Washington v. U.S., 129 U.S. App. D.C. 29, 390 F.2d 444 (1967) Frendak v. U.S., 408 A.2d 364 (D.C. 1979) Jones v. U.S., 463 U.S. 354, 103 S.Ct. 3043 (1983) Foucha v. Louisiana, 112 S.Ct. 1780 (1992)
Diminished Capacity People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 347 N.E.2d 898 (1976) Ibn-Tamas v. U.S., 407 A.2d 626 (D.C. 1979) Montana v. Engelhoff, 116 S.Ct. 2013 (1996)
Psychiatry and the Death Penalty
Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866 (1981) Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 103 S.Ct. 3383 (1983) Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087 (1985) Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 106 S.Ct. 2595 (1986) Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S.Ct. 2597 (1991) State v.Perry, 610 So.2d 746 (La. 1992)
Expert Witness Testimony Standards Frye v. U.S., 293 F. 1013 (1923) Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 61 U.S.L.W. 4805, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993) General Electric v. Joiner, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997) Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1l67 (1999)
Juvenile Court
Gault,In Re,387 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1428 (1967)
Reference:
Landmark Cases. (n.d.). Connections. https://connections.ca6.uscourts.gov/landmark-cases